Friend had car seized for no insurance, was not on MID as was under a trader policy.

Does he still have to pay all the tow away and release costs???

Why wasn't his car listed on the trade policy?

Get your friend to contact the forces vehicle recovery manager and explain the circumstances. If the vehicle wasn't listed and he couldn't prove insurance cover then the seizure was lawful. They may cancel the fees.

Was he asked to produce his evidence of cover? Did he? If not then I can understand why the officer formed a reasonable suspicion.

As stated, as long as the officer had a reasonably held suspicion that the car was uninsured the seizure was legal and the Police do not have to refund any costs, some forces will depending on circumstances, but not all.

Without the full story of what was said at the roadside we can't comment on whether or not the belief was reasonably held. For example if he could state it was on a trade policy and that the insurer was 'trade insurer ltd' and the officer took no steps to confirm this, then it probably wasn't reasonably held, if your friend couldn't give him any information its hard to see what further checks the officer could make.

Was the insurer informed of the vehicle, if so how long before the seizure? He may have a claim on the insurer if its their fault it wasn't on MID.

There are some steps that have to be taken before seizure is lawful. Reasonable suspicion is just one precondition.

Depending on the time of day the officer has the ability to contact MIB at the roadside who would have been able to confirm if the vehicle was listed or not.

And unless the vehicle was added to the trade policy recently, that information would also be on the PNC.

Sorry...more details....

Stop was late at night [11pm]

Wasn't listed on trade policy as was only on loan to him for a few days [not insured by owner so not on MID]

Had actual trader policy with him, but police said that as it didn't specify [either way, btw] 'covers vehicles on loan' then this was invalid. Police didn't try call anyone to verify [due to time of night??].

Insurance has since given friend a letter saying that the policy does [and did] include borrowed and hired cars....so he can get it back with no hassles hopefully. [just the costs to deal with]

Sounds as though lawfully seized.

I'd be complaining to the insurance company.

Going by his account the police said his traders policy documents (which he supplied) did not say loaned/hired vehicles where covered.

If the insurance company did indeed cover it, surely it should state on the policy it was covered, as if it isn't stated it is presumed (correctly) not to be included.


ie my personal insurance states that I can drive cars not owning to me. this is on the policy, if it wasn't then police would rightly assume that it did not.

Sounds lawful to me, I've not come across many trade policies where loan vehicles are covered unless specifically requested and written in the policy, so if the policy states this then it is indeed insured.

A bit of a heads-up to get any vehicles he has in trade or on loan on to his policy ASAP. With the number of ANPR cameras now out there he is very likely to be pulled up, which is inconvenient even if he can display a relevant insurance certificate to avoid seizure.

Thnx....hopefully get it sorted.

I'm not sure I agree here, depending on the exact wording of the certificate (can we see a scan/photo of the relevant text). But if the police made no effort to contact the insurer or MID at all, then I do not believe his suspicion was reasonable as a certificate was produced purporting to cover the usage.

I'd certainly be making a complaint to the Police with a letter from the Ins Co stating the car with its usage was covered at the time.

It was 11pm, how do you suggest they contact the MIB?

The certificate didn't cover the vehicle so the seizure was lawful, as stated them issue is with the insurance company and the wording of their certificates.

I confess I don't know the opening hours of the MID, which the officer might, but I doubt he knows the times for all insurers and didn't make the effort to find out if they were open or not, was that reasonable to seize the car without taking 1 minute to ring them (how long would he have been waiting by the car for it to be collected?)

As you don't know what it says on the cert, saying it wasn't covered is a leap of faith (or lack of) isn't as you don't actually KNOW do you, you don't know whether it said he was insured, hence why I mentioned the EXACT wording. If the OP can post the EXACT wording it will tell us, then you'll be in a position to make definitive statements.

As the insurer says he was insured, its doubt very much that the certificate if correctly read doesn't say just that, that's the whole point of it after all.

MIB and insurance companies are office hours. What you have to consider is there maybe a 24 hour line to the insurance company for a claim but many pass you straight to police liaison.

The act states it is down to the driver to prove the vehicle has insurance, given what has been posted it would be fair to say there was reasonable suspicion it wasn't insured.

PNC would show no insurance on driven vehicle.
The driver hadn't added the vehicle to his policy.
He produced a certificate which didn't obviously cover the driven vehicle.
MIB was closed.

Can see how he was unreasonable or acted unlawfully.

Suspicion is a very low threshold.

Are you saying the officer was wrong in his actions?

No...

Didn't obviously, and didnt are two different things, if it did cover the car then the seizure was unlawful as reasonable suspicion then doesn't come into it, as we don't know what it said yet, then anything else is conjecture isn't it? No trade certs list the cars covered, he may have been a badly trained rookie (sic) who wasn't familiar with trade policies for example and as he couldnt find one just assumed. It many forces have as guidance that not being on the MID of itself is not 'reasonable suspicion' anyway.

Really, when did you last see one?

You're not as clued up on trade policies as you think you might be.

I'm not sure what you're saying. If the policy covered the vehicle on its face (ie it was obviously covered) then that would tend to negate any reasonable suspicion. If it didn't then reasonable suspicion can still exist. You can't use facts only available later on to inform whether there was reasonable suspicion at the time. The fact that the vehicle was covered is largely irrelevant to that calculation.

Sorry, I was saying what you said, "If the policy covered the vehicle on its face (ie it was obviously covered) then that would tend to negate any reasonable suspicion" though I'm querying how obvious the erm, obvious, has to be...it surely either says it or not, if the officer doesn't read it right it may not be 'obvious' but the presentation of a valid cert would trump any suspicion as I understand it?

My friends trade policy cert had a statement (I guess I looked at it out of interest 2-3 years ago) along the lines of "covers any vehicle owned by, or in his possession through the course of, his business" he only has to give them VRM's within 7 days of a car coming into his possession (in the policy, not on the cert).

I think that's what's being said - if it wasn't clear on the certificate that the vehicle was covered then reasonable suspicion can exist. It's a low threshold to overcome, something like 10-20% sure it's true.

Some trade policies allows the policy holder to add and remove vehicles online, if this facility is available then there is no excuse for not adding a loan vehicle.
Yes probably unreasonable if you're only taking it for test but for SDP I can see why you wouldn't use it.

165A Power to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance
(1) Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

SNIP
(3) The second condition is that
(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,
(b) the person fails to produce such evidence, and
© the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

So production of a certificate, if it is evidence of insurance (whether he reads it wrong or not) means that reasonable suspicion doesn't enter into it.

So I would contest the 'obviously' and would suggest it is a matter of fact whether or not it evidences it, in the case of a trade policy where vehicle details aren't on the cert, there is no mention of MID, so all the evidence is on the cert and therefore I would suggest must be taken at face value unless the contrary can be shown, for example where a policy has been cancelled where the officer would be expected to prove the cancellation (by phoning the insurer)? As the MID 'system' is KNOWN to not be perfect (even for regular insurance) then it can't be taken at face value when there is some evidence to the contrary?

You're obviously going to read that to suit yourself.

Others may read it as the OPs friend failed to produce evidence the vehicle he was driving was insured.

The only evidence most people will have is the certificate, what other evidence would you suggest people could present? On that basis once presented the officer must have good reason (and the reasonable suspicion doesn't arise in this section remember) to consider it to not be evidence.

Without knowing what the cert says though we are going round in circles, so I suggest the OP posts that wording.

That's basically the general MT wording which is normally along the lines of "Any vehicle the property of policyholder or in the custody or control of the policyholder in connection with this business as a motor trader".

I suspect the issue being the traffic officers questioning has established the car was borrowed from a friend and was not either his property or being used in connection with his motortrade business.

Having said that many MT Insurers will cover claims for vehicles in the OP's position although there are some who won't cover them.

The OP appears to have received confirmation from the Insurers they would provide indemnity, it's not clear if they're fully aware of the exact circumstances but a letter of indemnity should be enough to release the car.

Some traffic cops are very fluent with Motor Trade Insurance as the road risk policies for traders from home provide them with rich pickings so the officers can be very clever on their questions.

I found this link which appears to be fairly relevant (I havn't read it)

http://www.acpo.police.uk/documents/unifor...s-insurance.pdf

Good find, only the OP's friend will know how that tallies with his stop, if the force didn't follow nationally established guidelines they should have some of their own, the vast majority will do.